Analog film photography and cameras

And one of my boy and his best friend. Rolleicord on HP5.

1 Attachment

I am in the process of fixing up another Voigtländer

..so cool!
Wish I had the patience (and talent) to do stuff like that.. I remember trying to fix the shutter of one of my L35AF's once, I failed, and felt like I needed a holiday afterwards 😅

Hope all goes well with the Voigtländer, looking forward to the first pictures!

Thank you 🙏,
The Voigtländer is ready to test and I took it out yesterday. Not yet finished the roll.

I’ve always been a tinkerer and at times it's even therapeutic to me. What makes it easier is that most of the cameras I took apart so far where super cheap flea market finds and partly broken. So nothing to loose here only wins.
I recently picked up an Olympus Pen FT and the film advance is very rough but I am much more hesitant taking it apart as it works otherwise and was much more expensive. Maybe some day.

Kodak Gold 200 / SMC Pentax 30mm 2.8

Not sure if there are any Leica M6 shooters in here, but there's fantastic news for those of you that have one with a broken meter - as some guys from the Netherlands have apparently built a replacement themselves!

Check out their Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/amsterdam_camera_repairs/

1 Attachment

West Yorkshire camera is sadly closing and has a 40% sale on a lot of film cameras and film gear:

https://wycameras.com/

Sad, but they were so consistently rude and snobby whenever I dealt with them that me and my mates all refused to buy anything from them. Lol.

My sadness was actually a presumption, I'd never heard of them before today haha.

Portra 400 / SMC 30mm 2.8

They carried lots of cameras, and were a relatively helpful shop to have around.
I shouldn’t celebrate their demise I guess.

But they were cunty.

It seems like fixing the Voigtländer VF135 worked out well. I got some really nice, sharp and well exposed photos out of it.

5 Attachments

Wasn’t even aware they weren’t fixable.

Is there a different process for developing slide film than normal 35mm film.?

Yes, they need different kind of chemicals to be processed - the "normal" (colour negative) film's process is called C-41, the one for slide film (colour positive) is E-6.

Most labs still do both, some only do C-41. For you it makes no difference, you just give them your exposed rolls of film and some monies, they develop it (and send you scans if you like).

Ah ha.
Unbeknown to me, I had some high quality slide film developed at 'snappy snaps'as a Christmas present.!
All the pictures look as if they have been poorly developed.
They were returned like normal 35mm film, im sure they have used the wrong chemicals or something.?

Not sure what happened (would be easier to tell if you'd post some of the photos) - but yea, probably they just developed your slide film in C-41.
Some people develop their film in the wrong chemicals deliberately, then its called "cross processing" / "x-pro" - and this usually gives very strong contrast and a shift in colours; often blues turn to cyan very much etc...

https://www.lomography.de/search/photos?order=popular&query=xpro

Thanks salad for the info
The boots should be pink not white. But most of them have this magenta flooding.
The film is about 15 years old and snappy snaps said this was why the colors are so saturated

1 Attachment

You're welcome 👍

The film being 15 years out of date (and probably not stored in the freezer in the meantime) definitely is a factor as well, bit hard to say but maybe they did indeed use the right chemicals (it's mostly a bit "dull" colours and severe colour shifts (typical for very old / badly stored film) from what I can see, but not the super high contrast one usually gets from developing slide film in C-41).

Okay so not conclusive, i will have to give them the benefit of doubt then.
Cheers salad.

Mamiya C330, single exposure back, Mamiya-Sekor 80mm 1:2.8 @ f4 1/15", paramender, Fujifilm UM-MA x-ray film @ ISO 64, replenished D-23 6' 20ºC.

1 Attachment

E6 film through C41 gives a yellow/green/blue bias with added contrast look. It’s the wrong chemicals but used to be done for the unique look it gave before photoshop was around.
Because you are getting machine prints this bias will be filtered out or at least to as close to ‘normal’ colours, no way are snappy snaps going to know this look might be desired, they probably didn’t know the film was transparencies not negative.
Film is definitely past its best and unlikely to be chemistry as that’s monitored with test film strips. (Or was when I used to dev and print)

It seems like fixing the Voigtländer VF135 worked out well. I got some really nice, sharp and well exposed photos out of it.

..sehr schön! 👏

Looking forward to seeing more from that 2.3/40mm 👍

recently got some film from a few years ago developed. these turned out pretty well! i only remember that they were taken on a canon ftb, not helpful at all.

3 Attachments

these looked sooo bad in color, so i learned how to use darktable and changed them to b&w. i'm pretty happy with the results, would have been nice to have the originals turn out though.

4 Attachments

..looking for some feedback from the b&w connoisseurs in here!
Thanks in advance for your time! 🙂

So, after giving all my home-developement things away a couple years ago I now decided that I want to shoot black and white again (and also dev and scan it at home), at least in the winter months (because light & colours outside are shit anyway and I spend more time at home anyway).

I would like to settle on one film if possible, most likely ISO 400, but have difficulties deciding which one exactly - and also what developer to use.
This is where I'd love to hear some suggestions from you guys.

Some un-labeled images below (in case you wanna guess the film) that I like the look of, with links to the respective flickr pages etc. where it usually says what film and developer was used.
I tried to get more of an idea (by looking at flickr, also looking at film / dev combinations over at filmdev.org) what kind of film and developer gives me "the look I want", alas still having a hard time honestly, as there's so many variables / many ways to do things.

I want to settle on ISO 400, as I will likely shoot in the darker time of the year mostly, also will be shooting with an orange filter most of the time (not necessarily to bake-in more contrast but because it helps me so much to judge light intensities when looking through the finder (I shoot SLR only atm) - I'm really struggling to shoot b&w when my finder image is in full colour, frankly).
So there's a 1-stop light penalty due to the filter, also this means the film and developer shouldn't be overly contrasty by nature as the orange filter will already add contrast.

The film should also scan fairly well (still got an old but decent Quato Intelliscan a.k.a. Plustek dedicated 35mm scanner here, just need to set up a Windows 7 donkey again to be able to actually use it with Silverfast, haha), even though the end goal is to actually go to a lab and finally do some wet prints again 🥰 ..some time in the future I hope..

I'm finding it really hard to put into words what I'm after, "look-wise"..
..should be somewhat clean, but not sterile (basically: should not look "digital")
..it's ok if it looks like film, even if it looks like 35mm film, but doesn't need to be particularly "rough"
..I like smooth tones / gradients but don't like if 90% of the image is medium greys
..like "inky blacks", to a degree
..should be sharp / have some "bite", although T-Max 400 is almost a bit much in this regard
..I like the "honest, analogue look" of HP5 usually, although it's really quite "hard" on the eyes.
..as mentioned upthread I loved Neopan 400, this was "bold" and "inky" - but also "smooth".

I realize the film used is only half the battle, as choice of developer & method plays a big role as well - and this is the area where I hardly have any expertise, frankly (used some Ilford dev in my early days, and in the later years just dumped everything in Diafine) 💁‍♂️

Ok here's some pics -

(via packinglight on lomography)

(via Marc A on flickr)

(via John Wilson on flickr)

(via Bob Cummings on flickr)

(via xqionghex on flickr)

(via goshenhank on lomography)

(via sputnik_unlimited on lomography)

(via 21stCenturyNorth on flickr)

(via August on flickr)

..so the last one is Tri-X, for example - which I find nice oftentimes, yet a bit more "bite" would be appreciated. Also I regularly think Tri-X photos are not true b&w (but rather a bit sepia toned), yet actually they are just grey tones. The midtone-greys look brown-ish / "warm" to me. Does anybody else see this or am I crazy?
With T-Max is basically the other way around, they do appear "cool" to me, even though they're really just grey..
..maybe I have been looking at b&w images to long in the last couple of days 😵‍💫

The Delta 400 pics I usually find very nice (this is also quite close to what I want), but missing the inky-ness a bit, also they're often looking a bit "tidy" / "very well behaved".

So thanks again for your time,
I do appreciate any feedback / input on this ✌️